Decoding Nestlé Waters North America’s Sustainability Journey: Environmental Villain or Facts vs. Emotions?

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire, ESG

Tags

aman singh, Brand Management, Business, corporate social responsibility, CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire, Disclosure & Transparency, environment, Environment, ESG, extended producer responsibility, heidi paul, kim jeffery, nestle waters, nestle waters north america, Net Impact, packaging, Philanthropy, recycling, shared value, Stakeholder Engagement, Supply chain management, Sustainability, sustainability, transparency, water conservation, watershed management

When a company labels its Annual CSR Report as Creating Shared Value, you have to stop and wonder if they’re responding to the latest buzzword in the market or leveraging its potential by truly embedding it into their reporting and cultural framework.

In its third cycle, Nestlé Waters North America’s [NWNA] latest Creating Shared Value Report attempts to accomplish the latter. Among its headlines:

What the company is doing to advance recycling in the U.S.
The company’s path to achieving a zero-waste future
Its continued efforts to be the most efficient user of water within the beverage industry

To gain some firsthand perspective and background on these goals and the accompanying challenges for North America’s largest seller of bottled water, I reached out to EVP for Corporate Affairs Heidi Paul [Join us for a Twitter Chat today, June 18th, at 1:00pm ET to connect with Paul directly at #SharedValue!].

Among my questions: how does the company balance criticism for selling bottled water while promoting healthy choices, what it is doing to shift its supply chain and use of plastic, its well-acknowledged work in the area of Extended Producer Responsibility, and how her team plans on including consumers in its drive for sustainability.

Defining “Shared Value”

Paul started the conversation by setting the record straight on the company’s definition of what’s quickly gained momentum as a replacement for CSR: Creating Shared Value.

“We define CSV as a strategic way to achieve triple bottom line sustainability. In other words, be financially, environmentally and socially sustainable. At the end of the day, Nestlé seeks to create shared value in those areas where we can make the most impact and that are material to our business. Globally, that is in the areas of Nutrition, Water and Rural Development. For our bottled water business in North America, our focus is on healthy hydration, packaging responsibility and watershed management.”

Has the terminology helped NWNA’s citizenship team – 28 people strong across the company – integrate its sustainability goals more effectively within its business units?

“It has done wonders. When you’re looking at philanthropy unconnected to business, it is not really sustainable. CSV focuses our engagement on the three critical topics and asks the whole company to see what can be improved for society and ourselves. We get the benefit of input from our supply chain, employee groups, community partners, etc.,” she said.

Coding the Impact of Bottled Water

Let’s get to NWNA’s main product then: bottled water. Does it feel the twinge of irony every time that is said in the same sentence as “shared value”? Paul chose to answer that with some data:

“Seventy percent of what Americans drink – according to the Beverage Marketing Corporation – today comes from a package, not from a cup or the tap. In fact, our research indicates that if people don’t have access to bottled water, 63 percent say they will buy some other beverage from a package instead, often a sugared or caloric drink with a greater environmental impact.”

“We play a key role in increasing Americans’ consumption of water, which is the healthiest beverage choice. As the data indicates, there is a crucial role that bottled water plays in consumer choice. Everywhere there is a high-calorie sugary, packaged drink available; we want to make sure there is water as well,” she emphasized.

Does the company’s sales data support Paul’s emphasis? “The volume sales increase for 2012 for the bottled water industry was 6.2 percent. And per capita consumption reached nearly 31 gallons, up more than 5 percent from 2011. Further, 51 percent of people who stop drinking sugared soft drinks are switching to bottled water. In fact, bottled water is outselling sugared soft drinks in grocery stores in eight major markets across the country,” she supplied.

At the end of the day, Paul believes, the company’s job is to talk about why bottled water is a choice – an amply available one – and why it should be available anywhere packaged beverages are being sold.

Is Nestlé Waters North America’s Business Model Sustainable?

That brought us to the next obvious thread: the plastic being used to produce the bottles. Recalling a keynote given by former NWNA CEO Kim Jeffery at a Net Impact conference years ago, I asked Paul how the company handles its fiercest critics regarding its use of plastic.

In a jungle of facts, fiction and emotions around environmental issues, Jeffery confronted the audience back in 2009 with a firm and resolute stand: we sell bottled water and we are doing everything we can to make that process sustainable.

Where there was a finality of “take it or leave it” to Jeffery’s remarks four years ago, Paul took a more nuanced approach to respond.

“Limited resources need to be used again and again. We have taken the mantle of becoming part of that solution. The larger point is there are billions of servings of beverages being sold everyday in some sort of package. Some populations are getting most of their calories from bottled drinks. And every time they choose water over a different drink, they’re making a more healthy and environmentally friendly choice,” she said.

And is a goal of reaching 60 percent recycling ambitious enough considering the climate and environmental challenges we face?

“At the time we were setting the goals, the nation was at a 28 percent recycling rate for PET plastic and thought that a goal to double that rate was ambitious and would require big changes. We had a lot to learn. We began to study recycling programs and the patchwork of policies and systems that were in place but were not moving overall recycling rates very much. There are big opportunities for increasing recycling by improving collection in public places, business and industry and in urban residential buildings. Today, however, there is no money going to fund this expansion of infrastructure.”

“There is also the issue of competing systems. Bottle bills for example do raise the recycling rates for bottles and cans, but actually reduce the efficiency of curbside because it is taking the most valuable commodities, which reduce the revenue, potential from curbside. Our goal was to work with others and find the most efficient system with the highest impact,” she emphasized. “

Environmental Villain or a Case of Facts vs. Emotions?

Of course the plastic of the bottled water we consume is bad for the environment. But so is almost every other product and consumer packaging we use in our day-to-day lives as study after study has shown.

Turning the argument on its head though, would we be wasting as much or filling up landfills as quickly as we are if we didn’t have the choice of bottled water to begin with? Where does consumer choice end and producer responsibility kick in?

Identifying that as another area for impact, Paul picked up:

“If bottled water isn’t available, people routinely purchase another packaged drink, one with calories and with a heavier environmental footprint. The availability of bottled water in times of natural disasters, where often tap water can be compromised, also creates a role for bottled water that goes beyond most product categories. Bottled water provides a reliable second source of water in these situations – that’s something everyone in our company is proud of.”

So when your business model is set around selling a product that is healthy and encourages nutrition while understanding and targeting its impacts through a well laid out sustainability strategy – as Jeffery succinctly put it in his exit interview with Greenbiz Publisher Joel Makower earlier this year – is it fair to be labeled an environmental villain?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

The Challenges of Sustainability

As Paul reiterated, the journey of tackling facts vs. reality has been full of challenges and continues to be an uphill task. “Like anything else, our work in the area of recycling, water conservation and reducing our social and environmental footprint has been a constant education,” she said, citing the lack of modern and efficient recycling system as one of the company’s top challenges.

“Not too many people understand the current system in place. There are numerous questions like who is funding what, how does it work, who are the middle men, how do we get to the next stage, where can we build in efficiencies, etc. And if the goal is to accept our responsibility as a producer to recycle efficiently toward a goal of zero waste, then we need answers to these questions.”

“We’ve always said we’re open to options, and so far the option that we have seen with the highest potential to be low-cost and efficient is a well-constructed EPR system, run by industry. What makes this complicated is there are a dozen different ways EPR has been implemented globally. Many of those are not efficient. This uncertainty about the ability to do it “right” makes others in the dialogue want to take more of a “wait and see” approach. Even if you convince people who, done well, EPR in the form being proposed is the best solution, there are doubts about implementation across the board,” she said.

Other challenges?

Consumer vs. Producer Responsibility

Paul cited the potential of collaboration in building more sources for wind and solar energy, as well [“we’re not there yet but this is definitely on our radar”].

There is also a need for collaboration in the area of water stewardship. “Improving watersheds will require collaborations among the various stakeholders within a watershed, be that users, scientists, environmental groups or government. Nestlé Waters North America manages the watershed areas around the 40 springs we use that are overseen by our 10 Natural Resource Managers. We have also made a commitment to collaborate on two watershed projects per year,” Paul said.

And what about NWNA’s consumers? How does the company leverage its brand to shift consumer behavior?

“In the 1970s, recycling meant ‘putting it in the bin.’ Today, this is old news. What motivates people now is when they understand its benefits. If a consumer recycles a water bottle after use, the greenhouse gas impact of that bottle is estimated to be reduced by more than 15 percent.”

“Also, we need to close the loop on what happens to the bottles after they are recycled. They are not trash; they are a resource that can be used again and again. Right now our 50 percent r-pet bottles in our Arrowhead, Deer Park and Resource brands shows consumers what happens when they recycle. It becomes a new bottle. The visibility of this message on our bottles helps us tell the story that we need much better recycling to become a more sustainable world.”

The company’s top challenge moving forward?

“At the end of the day, you want zero impact, but is that possible? Our challenge is to keep finding those ways to improve when it feels like you’ve reduced the impact to the minimum,” she said, finishing with a flourish: “You need to find the next frontier every time – that’s the goal. And the challenge.”

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on June 18, 2013.

#SustLiving: In Conversation with Unilever’s Chief Sustainability Officer

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR reporting, CSRwire, ESG

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

#sustliving, aman singh, Brand Management, Chief sustainability officer, consumption, CSR reporting, CSRwire, Disclosure & Transparency, Environment, ESG, gail klintworth, Leadership, Stakeholder Engagement, stakeholder engagement, supply chain, Supply chain management, Sustainability, triplepundit, Twitter, unilever

A conversation with Unilever’s Chief Sustainability Officer Gail Klintworth on the Sustainable Living Plan’s progress, challenges, what’s necessary to shift global & local consumer mindsets and more: Moderated in partnership with Triple Pundit’s editorial duo Jennifer Boynton and Nick Aster.

[View the story “Unilever’s #SustLiving Trends Worldwide: Goals, Challenges & the Way Forward” on Storify]

Connecting the Dots Between Consumers, Consumption & Sustainability: The External Face of Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSRwire, ESG

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brand Management, Business, cause markeing, cause marketing, CSRwire, employee engagement, Environment, ESG, marketing, packaging, palm oil, PepsiCo, roundtable on sustainable palm oil, sanitation, Stakeholder Engagement, supply chain, Supply chain management, Sustainability, sustainability, unilever, unilever sustainable living plan, waste, water

What role does a consumer-facing sustainability strategy play in an ambitious plan like the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan? That’s where I left off in my interview with Marketing Chief Keith Weed last week in our review of the ambitious Plan two years since launch.

From Desire to Habit: Unilever’s Five Levers for Change

He chose to respond by explaining a framework called the “Five Levers for Change” that his team developed to solve exactly this dilemma. An excerpt:

Make it understood. Sometimes people don’t know about a behavior and why they should do it. This Lever raises awareness and encourages acceptance.
Make it easy. People are likely to take action if it’s easy, but not if it requires extra effort. This Lever establishes convenience and confidence.
Make it desirable. The new behavior needs to fit with how people like to think of themselves, and how they like others to think of them. This Lever is about self and society.
Make it rewarding. New behaviors need to articulate the tangible benefits that people care about. This Lever demonstrates the proof and payoff.
Make it a habit. Once consumers have changed, it is important to create a strategy to help hold the behavior in place over time. This Lever is about reinforcing and reminding.

“We need to continue to work with others to drive this change. If we achieve the Sustainable Living Plan, and it doesn’t change business at scale, ultimately that’s a fail. Unilever’s impact is huge but we’re still a drop in the ocean. We need a movement going for businesses to help address this,” he explained.

“We are already working with organizations like the World Toilet Organization, UNICEF and others on sanitation, for example, which is a very important issue for us. Two million children die every year from pneumonia or diarrhoea. In a world where there are more mobile phones than toilets or toothbrushes, our work ahead is sure cut out for us,” he added.

The fact is Unilever cannot do it alone. None of it.

And Weed and team have understood that since launching the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan. While scale is a huge factor, organizations require individual and mass power to change consumer behavior and habits. And that is where the Five Levers for Change along with creative partnerships like the kind Weed referred to can help.

Making Sustainability Personal…

“I was in Brazil recently speaking to a lady in Sao Paulo about the environment and the city’s pollution. For her this meant dust from the nearby construction and the tainted flavor of her water supply. These were her immediate challenges – not deforestation or climate change. People view the world through the prism of my world – family, friends, and community. Our world is a step bigger: the city you live in, the supermarket, the local dump, etc. And the final level, ‘the world’ is the rainforest, the ice melting in the Arctic,” Weed continued.

His point: We need to connect “my world” with “the world” for consumers. “Right now we’re at level one. When I asked the lady what she thought would solve the issues, she suggested stopping the
littering because it would stop the drains from getting clogged and therefore avoid local floods. Level One,” he said.

What companies need to do is create a movement and work with people to drive change. A natural question then: Is Unilever working with other companies on its initiatives or primarily with nonprofits?

… and a Business Driver

One example Weed offered was palm oil.

“We purchase a lot of palm oil but it still makes only for three percent of the world’s palm oil. We started our journey by promising to source 100 percent of our palm oil sustainably by 2020. It’s a clear signal to the entire palm oil supply chain that that is the future we are working toward.”

“But this goal would be impossible to reach across the value chain without working with other purchasers of palm oil. So we work with other businesses and NGOs on the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil to do this collectively.”

In fact, Weed says Unilever managed to reach the 100 percent goal last year because of this collective effort. The next step: To make the supply chain of sustainable palm oil easier and connected by 2020. “Right now procuring sustainable palm oil means weaving through a very complex supply chain,” he added.

Another example: the work of the Consumer Goods Forum, which includes 650 members including manufacturers, competitors, retailers and NGOs, responsible for over $2.5 trillion in sales. And Weed is pretty positive about the goals and work of the Forum: “There are a lot of companies getting behind the need to address the negative impacts of deforestation, and momentum is starting to build,” he said.

While momentum is starting to build – with several companies announcing new initiatives and collaborations – the issue did bring us back full circle to where we started: how do we connect these overarching partnerships with the average consumer?

Subtle Messaging & Cause Marketing

And what role does cause marketing play in Unilever’s 2020 plan? Should we expect more nuanced advertising on the lines of the Dove campaign, for example? Or go full throttle like Patagonia’s “Don’t Buy This Jacket” campaign?

It’s going to be subtler, says Weed. “For example, for our Tomato soup in Germany or our Ketchup in India, we talk about sourcing tomatoes sustainably. With our Lipton tea, we talk about sourcing all our tea and tea bags sustainably by 2020,” Weed explained.

“Consumers comprehend these messages differently though. When we talk about sourcing our tea sustainably, customers see the Rainforest Alliance logo as a sign of better quality and taste, not necessarily sustainability. With our Hellman’s mayonnaise we discuss cage-free eggs. Consumers perceive that as an indication of better food: animals are better looked after therefore they’re getting better food. However, it’s still early days,” he added.

Work Culture: Participating in Change

Early days also for Unilever’s employees, who are witnessing – and participating – in a significant shift culturally at a company that has left behind decades of “doing things one way” to a more complex ideology. How has the company’s culture evolved since 2010?

According to Weed, the greater purpose espoused by the Sustainable Living Plan has been significant for employees – kind of like Performance with Purpose over at competitor PepsiCo. “The notion that you can work for a business to earn money, build a career and also do it in a better way is significant. We need new ways of doing business in the future – our generation has stolen from our children’s
generation financially and environmentally – so we ‘re going out and saying we want our employees to innovate and encourage new ways of doing business,” Weed said.

In fact, the marketing chief, who also leads internal and external communications for Unilever, says despite the many crises facing our world today engagement levels among employees have gone up consistently every year.

A sentiment that resonated in an email I received this week from Kam Erik Fierstine, a project delivery manager in Unilever Engineering Services at the company’s Henderson, Nev.-based ice cream plant. Here’s what he wrote when I asked him about the culture at his company:

“The Sustainable Living Plan is something that is quite apparent to those of us that live in a desert-like area where we are very conscious of water usage. It has shown our employees that Unilever has the same values that we were raised with. Our employees would not put up with a leaky faucet at home, and now they have the backing of management to proactively fix these simple issues at work.”

“We all agree that we want to leave a healthy planet for future generations and we can help do that by conserving our resources. Our employees see the management team walking the talk and that empowers them to escalate issues and voice new ideas. They will now do small things to make a larger impact like pick up things from the floor or switch off conveyors or equipment when not in use.”

The Henderson, Nev.-based ice cream plant was recently honored by the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy for its sustainability practices.

“They see us taking on challenges in a positive way and that’s inspiring,” Weed wraps up.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on May 1, 2013.

Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan: The Challenges of Being Too Ambitious

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

agriculture, Brand Management, Business, cause marketing, climate change, Consumerism, Corporate Governance, CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire, disclosure, Disclosure & Transparency, dove, energy, environment, Environment, food, hygiene, Leadership, lifebouy, marketing, nutrition, paul polman, Social Enterprise, supply chain, Supply chain management, Sustainability, sustainability, Sustainability Report, unilever, unilever sustainable living plan, water

Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan was created and launched amid much fanfare in 2010. It was lauded for its ambitious goals, an exhaustive list of metrics and for its commitment to put sustainable and equitable growth at the heart of its business model.

This week, the consumer products company released its second progress report and it began with a stark statement from CEO Paul Polman:

The world continues to face big challenges. The lack of access of many to food, nutrition, basic hygiene and sanitation, clean drinking water or a decent job should be a concern to all of us. We firmly believe business has a big role to play in striving for more equitable and sustainable growth, but large-scale change will only come about if there is real collaboration between companies, governments and NGOs across all these areas.

Now, the report is impressive, exhaustive and filled with data. So to get beyond the flash, the avalanche of numbers and statistics, I reached out to Keith Weed, Chief Marketing & Communications Officer also responsible for the Sustainable Living Plan, to discuss not only the challenges of reaching some of the goals Unilever is striving for by 2020 but also the successes, the unforeseen road bumps and the transformation the company is undergoing culturally because of the Plan.

To get started, here are the three overarching goals Unilever began its Plan with:

Help more than a billion people take action to improve their health and well-being;
Source 100 percent of agricultural raw materials sustainably;
Halve the environmental footprint of its products across the value chain.

Ambition: Sustainability in Perspective

“The report is indicative of what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to do things at scale. This is not a [standalone] CSR project in Africa but something that touches every single element across our value chain,” he began.

It takes a mindset shift to put Unilever’s plan in perspective. As Weed explained, “The idea that it isn’t just about the footprint of your facilities…we have to think all the way through the lifecycle of a product from consumer to facilities to sourcing to the impact of key productions. The Unilever Sustainable Living Plan guides our direction.”

Did his team realize the magnanimity of the goals they were setting? “We knew that we couldn’t achieve all of them but that if we set them like this, we would find solutions along the way by working with others,” he said, adding, “When you get interconnected, solutions and opportunities open up. That was the spirit we started with.”

And the results encapsulated on Unilever’s website and a 53-page PDF download, are in keeping with that spirit. “It’s not about mechanically ticking off the targets and goals. Our Sustainable Living Plan is a movement to get business to move toward socially and environmentally sustainable future,” he clarified.

The Unilever Sustainable Living Plan: Highlights

First of, he reminds me that from the outset, the Plan set out the sustainability goals to be achieved alongside the mission set out in 2009 to double the business. “We serve two billion people a day and another 2.5 billion are expected to be added to the world’s population by 2050. So our goal is to reduce our environmental footprint and increase our social impact while doubling our business.”

The good news: “We have started to drive sustainability into the core of our business and today, our sustainability efforts are helping to drive business growth.” One example is Unilever’s popular Lifebouy soap, which was rebranded in 2010 with a social purpose alongside:

[We went] from selling soap to encouraging people to wash their hands – and wash them correctly. And our efforts have resulted in double-digit growth over the last three years – and reaching millions with our Handwashing campaign. It’s proving the coherence of our strategy of combining social impact with business growth instead of just a sales goal,” Weed explained.

Other examples:

Laundry cleaner: Unilever increased its market share by 10 percentage points since 2010 to over 25 percent, with its concentrated liquids, which according to Weed carry a much lower carbon footprint in production and use.
Dry shampoos: A huge opportunity for the company, right now dry shampoos are mostly sold in the U.S. – where Unilever occupies a 75 percent market share. But as the company enters into more water-restricted countries, Weed predicted an accompanying increase in sales. The environmental benefit? Compared to heated water, dry shampoo reduces CO2 by 90 percent through lower water usage and less heating of water for the shower. An added benefit for developing countries: water conservation.
Dove: The Self Esteem campaign continued to gain momentum with 62 percent of women who know of the campaign now recommending Dove to others. “The campaign started with the idea that we should think differently about how we portray beauty,” said Weed, “Today, it’s a global movement.”
Oral hygiene: Unilever’s oral hygiene campaign helped its Signal brand grow by 22 percent in 2012. “People brush their teeth in the morning and evening, which requires more toothpaste, ergo a virtuous circle,” contextualized Weed.

A Twist on Purposeful Cause Marketing?

So cause marketing spelt and implemented differently. By attaching value and impact with its core products, Unilever is addressing a question all consumer products companies continue to struggle with: how do you change consumer behavior to scale a company’s sustainability efforts?

For Unilever, this has meant active pairing of product and messaging with a focus on impact and growth, yet ultimate success is far away.

As Weed explained:

This is a coherent strategy that works – we’re increasing our social impact while growing our business. However, while we’re making good progress, we’re still facing challenges across the value chain, whether it’s with sourcing, food production or disposal.

And each carries with it a nuanced set of challenges, a complex set of solutions and invariably a cobweb of marketing, brand positioning and partnerships.

We have reduced our CO2 emissions, non-hazardous waste to landfill has been reduced in 50 percent of our factory sites, we’re sourcing over a third of our agricultural raw material from sustainable sources, up from 14 percent when we started in 2010…yet we’re miles away from our 2020 target of 100 percent,” he offered.

Scaling Behavior: Easier Ideated than Done

Of course, a key ingredient in Unilever’s Plan is the ability to scale. For the world’s largest tea producer, these achievements might mean small metrics today but when scaled are attribution to an entire value chain at work on technological improvements, environmental studies, and more. However, the opportunity is also a challenge:

“The sheer scale of our commitments is tremendous. For example, we want to be able to educate a billion people by 2020 on washing their hands correctly. That’s a lot of people – despite the progress we’ve already made since 2010 –119 million people reached since 2010, of whom 71 million were reached in 2012. Scale has been more challenging than we originally thought,” Weed explained.

Another challenge: encouraging people to adopt new behaviors.

Consumer Behavior: The Toughest Challenge Yet?

“When someone tells you something about hygiene, it’s easy to do it for a couple of days and then switch back to your old habits. Habits are hard to change and we’re seeing this come up in almost every initiative,” he said.

Using the example of laundry, he exemplified:

The biggest use of domestic water across households worldwide is for laundry. Only a few hundred million in North America and Europe use machines. The other billions wash their clothes by hand and usually use four buckets of water to do so: wash in one, rinse in three. Our challenge is to reduce that rinsing from three buckets to one. So we came up with a product that kills the foam – wash in one bucket and rinse in one bucket. Water used is instantly cut to half. And we expected the product to be a runaway success.

The team found that embedding that behavior change of using one bucket instead of three was instrumentally tough. Even in water scarce markets where people have to walk long distances for water. “Rinsing is hard work. I thought this would be a rapid victory but we found that it takes time to change habits and we ended up reaching only 29 million households, much lower than anticipated,” he recalled.

When your footprint encompasses billions of culturally diverse populations with very different social and environmental settings, scale becomes an ever-moving target.

Perhaps Weed puts it best again: “If you went to work in a Boeing 747, it wouldn’t make a difference to the planet. If half the planet started doing that, it would make a huge difference. The power of individuals is when you scale them together.”

Its hard work.

And Unilever’s 2012 Progress Report while celebrating the company’s achievements does not undercut the challenges ahead. “We’re breaking new ground every day. We’re showing results. But there are several pieces we are yet to crack,” said Weed.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on April 24, 2013.

Earthwards 2.0: Johnson & Johnson Seeks to Evolve Sustainable Product Innovation

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSRwire, ESG

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

andrew winston, Brand Management, CSR, CSRwire, earthwards, environment, Environment, ESG, health care, healthcare, hunter lovins, Innovation, lifecycle analysis, marks and spencer, Sustainability, sustainability, sustainability strategy, unilever, waste

In recent posts, I explored the genesis of Johnson & Johnson’s proprietary Earthwards^® process and how it has been used to help develop greener products to meet customer needs. For Johnson & Johnson, the process of instilling a sustainability mindset began with introspection and questioning: How does an organization with multiple product lines and a global workforce develop and define greener products? And the process began with a tool called GAIA, or Global Aquatic Ingredient Assessment.

In the beginning, GAIA was operating almost exclusively with R&D because it was a science-based tool with specific emphasis on measuring downstream ecosystem impacts. Implementation of the Earthwards process accelerated broader adoption and has helped spur greener product innovation based on lifecycle thinking that is, in part, quantified by tools like GAIA. But Earthwards, despite its rigor and initial success, is still in its infancy.

In 2012, Senior Director for Worldwide Environment Health and Safety Al Iannuzzi enlisted a team of experts that volunteered to examine the Earthwards process and recommend areas for improvement. What’s next? I explore the future of the program through the eyes of two well-respected sustainability experts who recently weighed in as part of that expert team: Andrew Winston and L. Hunter Lovins.

_____________________________

By now, you’ve probably caught a glimpse of that new inspiring Honda Civic 2013 commercial, framing innovation as believing that ‘things can always be better.’ For Winston, making things better begins by asking questions. “As we pursue sustainability in the future, asking the right questions will be as important as the answers we get,” he said.

For the people at Johnson & Johnson, the concept of continuous improvement is a driving force. So it makes sense that their efforts to evolve the current Earthwards methodology into a better process began with some honest introspection and engagement with a few external experts, including Winston and Lovins.

In a recent phone call with Winston, I asked him his impressions of the Earthwards process.

He believes that the Earthwards process is a solid program with appropriate categories and logical steps that “empowers product developers with information and helps them understand the choices. It’s a well-designed system, but does have its pros and cons.”

I asked him to elaborate.

“They have the right categories, seven in all, but the concern is that a product could be improving in three distinct areas, but these may not be the most important areas to focus on in order to address the products’ greatest material impacts. There’s a fine line between simplicity and enabling efficient assessments.”

Of course there are trade-offs. But the biggest challenge internally is giving employees the time and information they need to become comfortable with the Earthwards process and appreciate the impacts of improvements across the lifecycle.

“It is a fair point,” said Iannuzzi. “Our Review Board, including three external experts, also helps to keep the process objective, making sure that the brands focus their improvements on meaningful areas. To make this even more robust, we will require each application to address the lifecycle screen hot spot areas identified in step two of the Earthwards process, the lifecycle screen.”

Sufficiently Ambitious or Room for Improvement?

There is broad agreement among the experts that Johnson & Johnson has a long history of – and
interest in – environmental protection and sustainability. “The company has cared about its impact on the environment and on people, and taken a position of responsibility,” Lovins noted.

While both Lovins and Winston said that the Earthwards process is one of the most comprehensive sustainable product tools in the industry, and in Lovins’ view, “a strong and rigorous process.” She also feels there is opportunity for the company to become even more aggressive in making this a companywide initiative.

“They need to examine the inadequacies of the Earthwards process, align it with tougher science-based goals and then make a commitment to hold every product to those goals.”

Winston had similar sentiments, specifically around the 10 percent benchmark Johnson & Johnson has set for improvements against Earthwards’ sustainability criteria. “The problem with a goal like 10 percent is that it’s kind of an internal-looking, corporate improvement. These goals at the product level need to be shooting for more dramatic increases.”

Some of J&J’s leading products are doing more than the required 10 percent anyway, so why stop there?

According to Iannuzzi, Johnson & Johnson sees the potential to raise the bar, perhaps substantially on some dimensions, but also recognizes the need to balance meaningful improvements within the original intent of Earthwards.

“J&J is always up for a challenge, but we want to make sure we don’t raise the bar so high that it becomes detrimental to Earthwards’ intended purpose of widespread adoption,” said Iannuzzi. “If we make the bar so high that almost no product can get there, no one would pursue it.”

New Blueprint Needed?

According to a recent study commissioned by Johnson & Johnson titled The Growing Importance of Sustainable Products in the Global Health Care Industry, 54 percent of health care organizations globally say green attributes are very important in their purchasing decisions of health care products and supplies. And this trend appears to be gaining traction, as 40 percent of global hospitals expect their future request for proposals to include sustainability criteria for the products they purchase. Among the greatest concerns hospitals share are the amount of energy they use and the volume of waste they generate.

With data like these indicating that the strongest push for sustainability is coming from within the healthcare sector, how will this influence the evolution of the Earthwards process?

To get at the heart of this question, Winston suggests that Johnson & Johnson ask itself whether doing better than 95 percent of its competitors is good enough.

In fact, Winston said Johnson & Johnson should go further than others and has challenged the company to raise the requirements for Earthwards recognition. For example, the baseline could be higher than the current 10 percent improvement needed to achieve recognition in the different categories, especially in the energy efficiency category, in light of the general scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by 85 percent by 2050.

Iannuzzi responded: “We plan to better understand the greenhouse gas emissions impacts of the improvements we make this year with the Earthwards process and consider ways to further encourage them in our products.”

Lovins suggests the company be more transparent with customers about where it is in the process of sustainable product development and where it is going. Iannuzzi’s team is already responding by sharing more content on www.earthwards.com including more information about the 36 products that have received recognition so far and other external-facing efforts like a six-part series with CSRwire.

Internal Certification Process, Not a Sustainability Strategy

Coleman Bigelow, Johnson & Johnson Global Sustainability Marketing Director, sees the Earthwards program as an internal product stewardship and green marketing process rather than a long-term sustainability strategy like that of Marks & Spencer’s Plan A or Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan.

The Earthwards process ensures “every product we produce has undergone a lifecycle screening and is as sustainable as possible. For the first time, we have a process that offers something to the developers, the R&D folks, as well as the marketers and sales associates,” Bigelow explained.

Iannuzzi, a Johnson & Johnson veteran of 28 years who has spearheaded the Earthwards program internally from the start and is a popular sustainability champion among the team, doesn’t foresee the company taking an approach akin to GE’s Ecomagination with a separate structure, either.

“Our philosophy is to embed sustainability into every product, not create something special or separate,” Iannuzzi explained. That said, the company does plan to track how much of its revenue stems from Earthwards recognized products. So while it is not its own revenue generating business unit, per se, it certainly could prove to save the company money over the long haul as well as drive innovation internally.

When I asked Iannuzzi about Earthwards’ ten-year plan, he reflected.

“Ideally, I envision it as a way of showing customers how we are coming up with more innovative products using sustainability as the driver. This means moving Earthwards process away from being an add-on and moving it toward full integration. External communication will also be key.”

“But right now, it’s not as well integrated as we would like,” Iannuzzi admits.

Regardless, Winston seems convinced that Johnson & Johnson’s efforts have been both aggressive and innovative as a whole. The next tricky move for the company, say the experts, is to be mindful of how quickly the Earthwards program grows in scope without losing sight of the program’s quality.

As the team at Johnson & Johnson prepares for Earthwards round two, the experts’ advice should help the healthcare company scale its journey from green to greener without losing sight of the ultimate goal: A sustainable planet for future generations.

For now, it’s back to the white boards.

About Andrew Winston and L. Hunter Lovins

A globally recognized expert in green business strategies, Winston is the author of Green Recovery and co-author of Green to Gold, the international best-selling guide to what works – and what doesn’t – when companies go green. Winston is also founder of Winston Eco-Strategies, a sustainability consultancy dedicated to helping companies use environmental strategy to grow, create enduring value, and build stronger relationships with their stakeholders. He writes extensively on green business strategy, including a weekly column for Harvard Business Online and guest byline articles on Huffington Post.

Lovins is an award-winning sustainability consultant, featured speaker at conferences across the globe and author of Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Lovins is also president and founder of Natural Capitalism Solutions (NCS), which creates innovative, practical tools and strategies to enable companies, communities and countries to become more sustainable. Lovins is also a professor of sustainable business management at Bard College and Denver University, and consults for large and small companies, and governmental clients.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on March 13, 2013.

Greener Products: Johnson & Johnson’s Blended Formula

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSRwire

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

al iannuzzi, Brand Management, change managemet, consumer products, CSR, CSRwire, earthwards, ehs, environment, gaia, green, green products, johnson and jonhson, lifecycle analysis, marketing, ray sharples, Sustainability, sustainability

A “fully sustainable company” remains an aspirational goal for many organizations – yet the road to this ambitious endpoint is filled with challenges waiting for innovative solutions.

To get started, a company must assess its environmental impacts and consistently work to minimize them. But can a company ever become a “fully sustainable company” and, if so, what’s the right roadmap to getting there?

In last week’s post, Al Iannuzzi, Senior Director for Worldwide Environment Health and Safety at J&J wrote, “We believe in greener products.” He was instrumental in mapping out Johnson & Johnson’s EARTHWARDS process to improve product sustainability and its successful adoption across the business units.

Earthwards is a proprietary process that guides Johnson & Johnson teams to holistically identify, address and improve their products’ biggest environmental impacts across a broad range of areas. For Johnson & Johnson, this accounts for a major leap in its journey to becoming a more sustainable enterprise.

Earthwards & GAIA: The Need For Tools

While Earthwards is now the criteria used to assess the sustainability of Johnson & Johnson products, it also requires business specific tools to help make products greener. A key tool for the Consumer Products division is the Global Aquatic Ingredient Assessment, or GAIA for short.

I sat down with Ray Sharples, Manager of EHS & Product Stewardship for Johnson & Johnson’s Consumer Division, to discuss the impetus for GAIA.

According to Sharples, there was a need to develop a tool to measure the environmental impacts of the products Johnson & Johnson puts into the marketplace. To address this need, in 2010, the Johnson & Johnson Consumer Product Stewardship team set out to create a new tool to quantify the impacts of various formulas.

“We needed a way to assess which materials were “better” among our ingredients so we could make improvements in the environmental attributes of our products,” Sharples said.

Interestingly, this technical and scientific process at Johnson & Johnson spurred opportunities for innovation and got employees engaged in the development of greener products. As part of the Earthwards lifecycle thinking, GAIA now plays a role in helping products achieve Earthwards recognition.

Johnson & Johnson started the GAIA scoring system in 2010. GAIA rates the ingredients in a Johnson & Johnson product. GAIA scores are primarily based on scientific issues such as persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity along with other factors, which, in some cases, can reduce the score of an ingredient.

“The intent behind GAIA was to guide product developers around the world to choose environmentally preferred ingredients,” Sharples said.

“The use of ingredients that are readily biodegradable and have minimal environmental impact to the ecosystem allows us to reduce our global environmental footprint. By making this process more streamlined and quantifiable, we’re not only increasing our environmental successes, we’re making it a part of everyday life,” he explained.

Getting a Lift From Earthwards

GAIA was operating almost exclusively with R&D because it was a science-based tool with specific emphasis on measuring downstream ecosystem impacts, but Earthwards changed that.

“Incorporating GAIA as one of the tools within the lifecycle thinking of Earthwards has been really important in mainstreaming GAIA across Johnson & Johnson Consumer group,” Sharples said, pointing to the much broader implementation of Earthwards across the company’s various business units and divisions.

“GAIA soon took off in the Consumer group, as brand teams tried to obtain Earthwards recognition. We’re now using GAIA as a way of educating and engaging our employees on key considerations for
sustainable product development,” he added.

Under the GAIA tool, a product with a score between 80 and 100 is considered environmentally preferred, which means the product consists primarily of biodegradable ingredients that minimize its impact on the ecosystem. “Sixty-five percent of our new formulations today achieve a GAIA score of 80 or higher. Our goal is to ensure that 80 percent of all new Johnson & Johnson consumer products score between 80 and 100 by 2017,” said Sharples.

Why stop at 80 percent?

“One-hundred percent is just very, very difficult to reach. Even reaching 80 percent will be challenging because of the complexity involved in our formulations,” Sharples explained.

GAIA: Hidden Opportunity?

GAIA offers obvious benefits and some less obvious ones. The tool, for example, has often led formulators and R&D teams to find opportunities that they would have previously missed. And making product improvements first through GAIA can help a product development team uncover other lifecycle improvements towards an Earthwards recognition.

Examples of products that first went through the GAIA process and then advanced to achieve Earthwards recognition include Johnson & Johnson’s Baby First Touch Zinksalva (Nappy Cream) and Baby First Touch Shampoo, both marketed under the Natusan brand in Europe.

Creating Change

Sharples’ comments reminded me of a keynote speech by Jeff Swartz, Timberland’s former CEO:

“Sometimes you have to stop wanting the consumer to dictate market trends, innovations and movements. Sometimes you have to take a stand and lead the market.”

But not all issues are as easy to remedy.

For example, zinc oxide is a “red” ingredient under GAIA and therefore, one that Johnson & Johnson aims to
avoid. But when it comes to sunscreen, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration [FDA] has approved zinc oxide as an active ingredient in these products and alternative sunscreen active ingredients have other potential environmental concerns.

So how does the company choose its next step?

Challenge the FDA? Continue with the status quo? Change its product formulation? And who takes on the cost burden of changing the formulation of a successfully tested product? The company? The government? The hospitals and health care institutions? Consumers?

These questions are complicated and require equally complicated solutions.

Like Johnson & Johnson, there are numerous companies aspiring to produce sustainable products, using renewable energy, pursuing zero waste and achieving other targets to ensure their impact on the planet and society is a net positive.

So far, their responses have been piecemeal with Johnson & Johnson’s Earthwards serving as an excellent example of the holistic approach needed in the marketplace. But is there a truly “fully sustainable company” that has figured it all out? If you know one, drop me an email.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on February 27, 2013 and part of a series on Earthwards, a Johnson & Johnson program.

Earthwards: A Front Row Seat to Sustainability in Action at Johnson & Johnson

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in ESG

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bill McDonough, biomimicry, Brand Management, clean technology, coleman bigelow, consumer products, cradle to cradle, earthwards, environment, Environment, ESG, green, Innovation, johnson and johnson, keith sutter, organizational development, product design, Supply chain management, sustainability, Work culture, zero waste, zytiga

While hosting a panel last year on responsible business, a discussion ensued on the need for creating change and influencing millions to shift their habits. I was intrigued by a question from the audience:

“Would companies ever be receptive to the idea of ‘embedding journalists’ in their organizations to test the theory of transparency and therefore influence change?”

While many companies might bristle at this idea, it’s something I’ve thought about a lot. I wondered which company would be the first to invite a journalist inside for a closer look at how its commitment to responsible and sustainable business is put into practice. To my surprise, I didn’t have to wait too long before Johnson & Johnson reached out to me with an invitation. They wanted to discuss the possibility of going inside the organization to conduct an objective review of its sustainable product development process, aptly titled Earthwards^®. As Keith Sutter, Senior Product Director of Sustainable Brand Marketing at Johnson & Johnson explained, the Earthwards process was developed as an internal tool in 2009 to assess the environmental impacts of various products and help drive improvements around specific sustainability criteria. The invitation meant I would get an unvarnished view inside a company that has traditionally shied away from the publicity spotlight. So I dived in.

Diving In: The Challenges of Meeting Sustainability Goals

My first exposure to the inner workings at Johnson & Johnson was a recent Earthwards quarterly board meeting. “Early on some of our external reviewers advised us to establish an Earthwards board of directors and appoint people from our legal, marketing and R&D groups, along with several subject matter experts from the outside,” explained Coleman Bigelow, a board member and Global Sustainability Marketing Director in the Consumer division at Johnson & Johnson. “Assembling a diverse group of stakeholders has been an important piece of the puzzle.” As the presentations started, I realized how challenging it could be to change the design, ingredients and packaging of existing products, built on years and years of research and testing. And for a healthcare company, its products must also meet the highest standards for consumer safety, patient usability and efficacy. So, layering on sustainability considerations to the product development process added even more complexity.

Diving Deeper: How High Should We Set the Bar?

One product reviewed by the board that day was Zytiga^®, a drug made by Janssen (the pharmaceuticals group within Johnson & Johnson), used in the treatment of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Through a recent acquisition, Janssen had received the rights to manufacture and distribute Zytiga and the team saw an opportunity to improve the way the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) was produced to decrease its environmental impact and use the Earthwards process to guide the improvements. After the chief scientist for Zytiga walked the group through a formal presentation, the questions began. Now picture a room full of people representing different disciplines across the company – from Product Development to Environment, Health and Safety – and several from outside. The range of questions was broad and impressive: Was the product in competition with another product? Why change the process that was previously used to make the API? Does the product have FDA approval yet? How does making the proposed changes to the design and production of the drug make it safer for the environment? What about the impact on plant workers? And does this change the packaging? More importantly, the group wanted to understand what innovations had led to the proposed changes for Zytiga, and whether these changes could be replicated for other products within the company’s portfolio. Following the Zytiga presentation and discussion, the board took up the next item on its agenda: Should the company move ahead with adding its internally developed Global Aquatic Ingredient Assessment [GAIA] to the Earthwards’ framework? This would allow products in the consumer sector – think Aveeno, for example – to receive one point for their improved GAIA score in the Materials category of the Earthwards criteria. The company developed GAIA to evaluate the impact its product ingredients have on water, and determine if a potential for toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation exists. Now the group questioned whether adding GAIA as an additional layer to the pre-qualifiers for Earthwards would raise the bar for other products competing for the recognition. As with Zytiga, the questions were far-ranging and complex: Does GAIA only consider the environmental impact of product ingredients, or does the assessment also consider the impact of these ingredients on human health? How do we weigh the toxicity? How does the consumer sector look at human health? With suppliers changing, how do we streamline the process? Does this then become a “hazard assessment rather than a risk assessment?” One example the board used to flesh out the pros and cons of GAIA was Natusan shampoo, which recently earned Earthwards recognition after overcoming a significant hurdle: Scientists had to figure out how to reduce the number of ingredients from 13 to eight to be eligible for recognition. The team explained that while the 13 ingredients used in the initial product were thoroughly reviewed for toxicology to insure that the finished product was safe for human use, the GAIA tool focuses on reducing ecosystem impacts. The board questioned whether the bar set by GAIA would be too high for some products. “We’re pushing for continual improvement while watching for signs of backsliding, and so far 60 percent of our products have continued to make further improvements,” was one sentiment. Another was, “We need to set the bar high but not so high that it discourages product developers from going for it.” Another board member – this time an external reviewer – commented that the allowable limits of “red” ingredients (those that Johnson & Johnson tries to avoid, where possible, due to environmental impacts) seemed reasonable, but cautioned that it might not be reasonable to others.

Complexities Arise: Is Zero the Right Sustainability Target?

As the day wrapped up one thought stuck with me: how high should the bar be when it comes to meeting the sustainability criteria of the Earthwards process? Context is of course key in these discussions. For some products and their ingredients, it’s a fine line between raising the bar and raising it too high. And since most of these products have been tested and retested for years for their impacts, toxicity and formulations, room for improvement is limited and, in some cases, tough to achieve. So how high should the bar be set? That’s the chicken or the egg question for companies today, isn’t it? While Bill McDonough, co-author of Cradle-to-Cradle and chief architect of this concept, promotes zero as the target – as in zero waste or zero negative impact – the reality is that everything we consume is made up of materials that we get from our environment, and therefore has an impact. The question is whether we can replenish the resources as quickly as we take them. And if not, how do we find alternatives? For believers of biomimicry, the answers may lie with nature. And how can a program like Earthwards, which the Johnson & Johnson team insists is not a certification or eco-label – indeed no product carries any indication of its Earthwards recognition on its label – help to push the bar consistently higher while acting as a purposeful motivator for the R&D team, the scientists, the product developers and the marketers, toward more sustainable products?

A Front Row Seat

For someone who doesn’t quite understand chemical equations and bioaccumulation, but does understand cancer, deforestation and the quest for sustainability, the board meeting was a revelation and a front row seat to an often-guarded corporate zone. For a company that earmarks a significant portion of its revenue to R&D, it is encouraging to see the commitment to sustainable product development in action. The board meeting ended on a high note. Zytiga was approved by the Earthwards board for recognition. There was excitement in the air and a belief that Earthwards is moving the company in the right direction. And the coffee pots were empty. All in a day’s work. Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on February 13, 2013 as part of a series about EARTHWARDS^®, a Johnson & Johnson program designed to promote greener product development throughout the enterprise.

Practicing CSR: Edelman’s 2012 Corporate Citizenship Report Reveals Tough Love

08 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brand Management, Business, CSR, CSR report, CSR reporting, CSRwire, disclosure, diversity, Edelman, human rights, iirc, john edelman, Leadership, marketing, PR, pro bono, supply chain, Sustainability, transparency, voluntary disclosure, volunteerism, work culture

When a PR and marketing firm publishes a corporate citizenship report, there’s a tendency to view the results – and the commitments – with a pinch of salt. After all, they’re traditional masters of spin. Right?

Wrong, says John Edelman, the namesake PR agency’s managing director for global engagement and corporate responsibility. Here’s how Edelman’s press release describes the firm’s commitment to corporate citizenship:

“Some call it corporate social responsibility. Others call it sustainability. For Edelman, global citizenship resonates most as a term describing the larger responsibility business has to society. The firm recognizes its place in the world as global citizens, local offices and individuals.”

“We’re incredibly pleased [that] we were able to provide over $5 million in cash, non-cash (volunteerism) and in-kind giving in FY12 to the communities in which we operate. Giving back has always been a big part of our agency’s heritage and helping our communities is just one of the ways in which we can be responsible global citizens,” John added in a recent conversation over email.

So what does the report detail beyond the private firm’s green commitments and philanthropic donations?

Human Rights & Supply Chain

Reminding me that citizenship at Edelman has only been a global function for two years, John pointed to two major accomplishments. “The introduction of our human rights policy and our supplier code of conduct. When I started in this role, we began to see more and more client requests and requests for proposals (RFPs) in regard to our citizenship policies. Our development of these two policies in FY12 is directly related to stakeholder expectations of Edelman as a global company,” he wrote.

The firm also joined the Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (Sedex), a web-based platform and registry where companies report on CSR-related initiatives around business and labor practices, health and safety and the environment.

For the past two years, the firm has used the GRI framework as a baseline for its CSR reporting. In 2011, the firm also became “one of 80 companies to join the International Integrated Reporting (IIRC) pilot program…as part of our commitment, our report reflects elements of the Integrated Reporting framework, such as identifying our capitals and transforming that capital to value.”

Challenges of Setting CSR Goals…

I have often said/written that the challenge of contextualizing what corporate social responsibility means for the service-based industries is uniquely harder than the consumer products sector. Not that the pressure is any less, as evidenced by the increasing numbers of CSR reports publishing in the last two years, but I do believe that B2B firms must dig deeper to identify – and fulfill – their responsibility to society, employees and the environment.

What’s been a unique CSR challenge for a firm that relies on its talent and has an immense global presence?

According to John, “the environmental initiatives and goals have been the most challenging.” He explained:

“The biggest contributor to our carbon footprint is business travel, which accounts for 73 percent of our emissions. Business travel for client-facing projects is a key part of what we do every day. Other industries and companies have more control over Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions and can achieve reductions through direct actions. Given that we need to travel to service our clients, it’s harder for us to control our Scope 3 emissions. While we understand this challenge, we still need to work towards reducing our GHG emissions.”

“To that end, we are working individually with each hub office on setting a greenhouse gas reduction target and implementing practices such as increasing usage of video-conference facilities and purchasing 50 percent recycled paper.”

And it’s not just setting the goal that’s been hard.

…And Implementing CSR Programs

Implementing new programs across the firm’s markets has been a challenge as well, he said. “We want to be a guiding force without being too prescriptive. We want to empower our employees around the world to implement and take part in citizenship initiatives with the understanding that they need to balance these with their regular workload,” he added.

John points out the inherent paradox that organizations like Edelman must tackle: how do you compel employees to volunteer and donate their time, money and skills while expecting them to manage a full workload and often, as is common in the PR world, 60-80 hour work weeks?

Ultimately it comes down to the committed few, driven by their passion and subjective understanding of their society and environment.

Disclosure: Led by Demand for Transparency

Since inception, Edelman has been a proudly private company. So why bother reporting on its non-financial goals? Especially when their service/product is often perceived in the market as spin?

It all comes down to being transparent, says the veteran marketing executive.

“Transparency has never been more important and we strongly believe that whether you’re a private or public company, you must be accountable for everything you do. Being transparent is part of how we operate and it’s necessary for us to report on the progress and challenges of our citizenship journey.”

As an example he pointed me to a section of the report, which highlights that the firm’s carbon footprint at “15,518 metric tons CO2e [had] actually increased since our last footprint period.” “We provide explanations for that increase, such as improved data-capture practices and control data quality, particularly on business air travel,” he said.

CSR: Business Opportunity?

Which leads to another question: As a PR agency, what was the motivation behind launching the Business + Social Purpose division – led by the legendary Carol Cone – beyond the obvious business opportunity with companies evolving from cause marketing initiatives into more robust CSR strategies?

“It was clear that we wanted to ‘walk the talk.’ Working with clients on sustainability and citizenship is certainly a business opportunity, but beyond that, we needed to evolve and integrate our own practices. This is what we tell our clients: sustainability and citizenship should be integrated into the overall business,” he said.

Has the client-driven practice impacted cultural behavior and the firm’s organizational hierarchy?

“We have partnered with our Business + Social Purpose (B+SP) team members since we established Global Citizenship as a functional department. This partnership was important because citizenship was a new function, and we wanted to access the expertise of our people to evolve our own Global Citizenship capability.”

“As an example, we involved our B+SP team in our materiality analysis to prioritize our FY12 report topics. Through this analysis, we added an entire section on engaging with our clients, as a result of the dialogue with our B+SP members.”

Walking the talk? That at least is the objective, he said.

“We talk about the importance of the inside matching the outside, and the idea that your employees are your best ambassadors. Citizenship is an integrated part of our overall corporate strategy and having a unified message and integrated approach to it is imperative for effective impacts on our business and society, rather than having a siloed approach where citizenship sits on the periphery of the company’s strategy and operations.”

CSR Reporting: The Ultimate Reward

The ultimate reward of having a CSR strategy is when you can use the reporting function as a reflection on your organizational practices and improve them incrementally. As Edelman helps other organizations weave their way through and inculcate CSR into business strategy, it is important that the firm use the same philosophy internally.

“In the long-term, citizenship needs to be further integrated into our overall management systems. We have been making incremental progress year to year….During year one, we established a foundation; during year two, we have established some goals. In year three, we hope to develop metrics around CSR performance and eventually, we hope to create a citizenship scorecard that can be integrated into our management systems,” informed John.

How does the firm measure the impact it is driving with its clients?

“We believe it is important to measure impact of citizenship by looking at internal and external measurements. In addition to contributions to the bottom line, such as money saved by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and hours and value of volunteerism, it is important to measure employee engagement, such as employee recruitment and retention.”

“Now that we have established goals in some of these areas, we will next develop metrics to assess employee engagement and impact. In an effort to drive a deeper level of employee engagement, we created the Community Investment Grant program, which provides any full-time employee around the network with the opportunity to apply for funding to support a nonprofit organization where they volunteer or serve on the board.”

And let’s not forget the external piece, he reminded me.

“Any citizenship initiative must be tied to producing public engagement behavior outcomes which are at the core of Edelman’s business strategy such as building deeper communities, building trust, adding commercial value, and changing behavior.”

Holistic CSR goals, got it.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on September 21, 2012.

Bagels With the Tall Guy: In Conversation with Green Mountain Energy

07 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSRwire

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

alternative energy, Brand Management, Business, carbon offsets, CEO Network, CSR, CSRwire, employee engagement, entrepreneurship, ghg emissions, green energy, green mountain energy, Leadership, Management, public policy, recycling, renewable energy, Sustainability, sustainability

Green Mountain Energy, founded in 1997, is the longest selling retailer of carbon offsets in the country with a lofty mission: To change our dependence on power generation from coal and nuclear energy to renewable sources.

With a clear environmental mission and a dedicated consumer base, why would a company like Green Mountain Energy [GME] bother publishing an annual sustainability report?

“The [sustainability] report gives us an opportunity to write about everything we are doing. When you build a company of people who are passionate about the environment, the report becomes a forum to talk about everything we are doing,” says former President Paul Thomas.

The day of our interview, Thomas was still President of the company he has led since 2000. Two days later, news of his stepping down was delivered to my inbox along with a quote:

“I am extraordinarily proud of what we have collectively accomplished at Green Mountain and know that the potential for driving meaningful change is nearly limitless if businesses, like ours, can put market forces to work to solve societal problems.”

Thomas is referring to the recent acquisition of GME by New Jersey-based NRG Energy.

Merging Two Cultures & Winning Over the Skeptics

How did the company overcome hesitance from employees, customers and investors alike about the acquisition?

“Our society is transforming as a whole from being oil-driven to something very different driven by renewable sources and technology. The question is how do we get from here to there as a society? NRG is a good example [of a company addressing] this dilemma. They are the largest investors in solar production in the country. Now, Green Mountain is a part of their initiative to make NRG a cleaner company – their activities are genuine and we fit well,” he explains.

What about shifting work cultures?

Thomas says the company has undergone several shifts since the 1990s. “We started with a lot of environmental enthusiasts with a low level of business skills. It would have been a lot of hot air if we didn’t drive value to customers. Today we are also a good sales organization, a customer-service driven company,” he says, transitioning from being an environmental company to a good business.

Sustainability Performance

But back to the 2011 sustainability report, which follows several other companies’ lead in shutting off downloadable PDFs in favor of an interactive all-you-can-consume website. The company has come a long way from its formation in the 1990s. According to the report, GME contributed to avoiding 4.5 billion pounds of CO2 emissions, which is “equivalent to not driving a car for six billion miles or planting 6.5 million trees.”

“Remember that in 1997, this was just an idea,” reminds Thomas. “We’ve also increased recycling and all our material now is made from 100% post-consumer recycled content,” he added.

GME also expanded its innovative Sun Club, which asks customers to pay an additional $5 a month to help the company invest in solar projects. The money donated is then distributed to fund solar projects nationwide in coordination with nonprofits. 2011 marked the biggest year yet in contributions.

But what is sustainability without employee engagement?

Transparency in Action: “Bagels with the Tall Guy”

GME encourages its employees to bike, bus or take the subway in its New York office and participants in 2011 doubled past years’ numbers, according to the report. The report also makes public GME’s paper and publishing standards as well as its contributions and partnerships with organizations like EarthShare.

Green Mountain Energy’s answer to town halls is what the staff quirkily call “Bagels with the Tall Guy.” Thomas explains:

“I’m 6’6” tall. My predecessor was bald so it used to be called “Bagels with the Bald Guy.” It is just an informal communication forum for employees to ask me anything that is on their mind. Nothing is off the table and the conversation is purposely unstructured.”

While all is fair game, Thomas admitted that not everyone attends every month. But what it does is allow “us to be transparent. I believe that employees are effective when they have more context of their job and how they are contributing. Their role makes more sense and there is less doubt about how they fit in and how they can make a difference,” he added.

Public Policy & Sustainability

With the Rio+20 Summit coming up, I asked Thomas what the government and public policy makers can do to help support the growth of businesses like GME.

Pointing to a fundamental disconnect, he said, “The public is ahead of policy makers because there is a fundamental misunderstanding between individuals who are concerned about the environmental and their willingness to make purchasing decisions.”

“In the last 10 years, we have seen a sea change in the public’s attitude. But policy makers have not caught up with that,” he continues, adding:

“Green Mountain can focus on market changes by aligning ourselves with the social and environmental benefits of our product. That’s a powerful combination. We’ve proven that green business works, that there is a market for us, and that we can drive a lot of societal benefit while providing good jobs and careers for individuals, and meaningful returns for investors.”

Thomas also cautioned activists and skeptics to keep in mind the regulatory barriers in the market for green energy. “Every state has its own approach ranging from Texas that is competitive and has an open market for electricity to states where the old monopolistic system is still there. We are not allowed to compete in those states!” he emphasized before adding, “We cannot sell green electricity without having permission to enter the states and compete first and foremost.”

A significant barrier but one that hasn’t stopped Green Mountain Energy from scaling the heights and pursuing its mission. His advice for aspiring social and environmental entrepreneurs? “Keep at it, we’ve done it and shown that green businesses can thrive. It’s possible.”

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on June 1, 2011.

Social Responsibility, Beer & Aliens: Journey to Becoming the Best Beer Company in a Better World

07 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by Aman Singh in CSR, CSRwire

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

ab inbev, Anheuser Busch, Brand Management, Business, carlos brio, carol clark, community, community development, CSR, CSR report, CSRwire, environment, ESG, executive compensation, Social Impact, Social Responsibility, Stakeholder Engagement, supply chain, Sustainability, sustainability, water conservation

I caught up with Carol Clark, Global VP for Beer and Better World, to drill deeper into Anheuser-Busch InBev’s latest CSR report. Key highlights:

The report is titled Connecting for a Better World. AB InBev makes beer. What’s the connection?

At AB InBev, our dream is to be the Best Beer Company in a Better World. We believe that taking consistent, active measures in our core areas of social responsibility means constantly connecting our business with our stakeholders, especially in the communities where we live and work.

It takes a team effort to address these issues. Through our work to promote responsible drinking, reduce our impact on the environment and support our communities, we work with others who share our collective goal of making a difference.

There’s a quote in the report from Carlos Brito saying “We’re not aliens.” Can you offer some context?

When Carlos Brito said, “We are not aliens …” he was responding to a question at the Business for Social Responsibility Conference last fall about why AB InBev actively promotes responsible drinking.

AB InBev today has over 116,000 employees operating globally. We live on this planet and share the same concerns as our friends and neighbors. Many of us are parents and understand how important it is to talk with our children to help prevent underage drinking.

Similarly, we don’t want to be on the road with drunk drivers, and we’re committed to supporting prevention efforts such as encouraging the use of designated drivers. We’re committed to addressing these issues not only from a business perspective, but also from a personal perspective.

What is the ROI in producing a comprehensive CSR report such as this one? Media mentions? Retention? Rankings?

Publishing our CSR report keeps us focused and accountable to our stakeholders and ourselves. The scrutiny that this annual process brings gives us an updated perspective to help us further drive our performance, engage our employees and very importantly, thank them for their great work over the past year.

From an external perspective, we’re satisfying the requests from varied stakeholders for transparency on our social responsibility efforts.

The report is over 80 pages. Who is your primary target audience? And, who would you want to target?

We have a lot of good things to talk about! We use the report to share our progress with diverse audiences – from community stakeholders to investors, to media, to government officials – around the world.

Alex Prud’homme author of The Ripple Effect recently said that “Water is the headlining story of our century.” Are you focusing on sustaining your business by reducing water use, R&D on water replenishment or identifying alternative products altogether?

Water is our primary environmental focus and we aim to reach a water usage rate of 3.5 hectoliters of water for each hectoliter of production by the end of 2012.

We tackle the issue of responsible water use by doing more to conserve both in our operations and in the communities where our breweries are located. Progress requires operational changes and continually applying the most updated technical innovations. It means going further with supply chain and community partners to help conserve water outside our walls. But it also requires reinforcing a mindset that doesn’t take water for granted.

[Anheuser-Busch InBev’s 2011 Global Citizenship Report]

It can be argued that 8.2% reduction in water usage since 2010 is not a lot. Primary challenges in reaching double-digit reduction?

Actually, if you look at the beverage industry, this is a significant achievement. And it’s important to keep in mind that we’ve focused on water and energy efficiency for some time now, so there is very strong year-on-year progress. And we’re also making these reductions while continuing to grow our business. That means that each year, our brewing operations teams find innovative ways to do more with less when it comes to water.

To date, we’ve achieved an average water use of 3.71 hectoliters per hectoliter of production across our global business, which represents a 13.7% reduction against our 2009 baseline.

Our target, which we’ve stated publicly, is to reach 3.5 hectoliters of water per hectoliter of production by end-2012, which will put us on the leading edge of water usage for the brewing industry.

Your report mentions the billions paid in wages and income taxes. Not a lot of reports make these metrics a part of their community development results. Why the emphasis on wages?

As the leading global brewer, we have operations in 23 countries. We have a significant economic impact on the local communities where we do business through the jobs we create, the wages we pay and the taxes we pay governments at all levels. We feel that it’s important to report on and recognize the value and impact we are bringing to communities where we live and work.

Can you talk to the “ownership culture” of the company?

One of our 10 AB InBev Principles is about ownership: “We are a company of owners. Owners take results personally.”

[Sustainable Beer: Anheuser-Busch InBev’s 2012 Environmental Goals]

We strive to create a culture that encourages responsibility and accountability, and that applies to our work on social responsibility as well. Creating this culture of ownership helps us build those connections and team approach, both internally and externally, to helping make a difference in our communities as we strive to be the Best Beer Company in a Better World.

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary sectionTalkback on April 26, 2012.

In Good Company: Singh on CSR

~ Connecting the dots between Business, Society & the Environment

Tag Archives: Brand Management

#SustLiving: In Conversation with Unilever’s Chief Sustainability Officer

Connecting the Dots Between Consumers, Consumption & Sustainability: The External Face of Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan

From Desire to Habit: Unilever’s Five Levers for Change

Making Sustainability Personal…

… and a Business Driver

Subtle Messaging & Cause Marketing

Work Culture: Participating in Change

Earthwards 2.0: Johnson & Johnson Seeks to Evolve Sustainable Product Innovation

Sufficiently Ambitious or Room for Improvement?

New Blueprint Needed?

Internal Certification Process, Not a Sustainability Strategy

Greener Products: Johnson & Johnson’s Blended Formula

Earthwards & GAIA: The Need For Tools

Getting a Lift From Earthwards

GAIA: Hidden Opportunity?

Creating Change

Earthwards: A Front Row Seat to Sustainability in Action at Johnson & Johnson

Diving In: The Challenges of Meeting Sustainability Goals

Diving Deeper: How High Should We Set the Bar?

Complexities Arise: Is Zero the Right Sustainability Target?

A Front Row Seat

Practicing CSR: Edelman’s 2012 Corporate Citizenship Report Reveals Tough Love

Human Rights & Supply Chain

Challenges of Setting CSR Goals…

…And Implementing CSR Programs

Disclosure: Led by Demand for Transparency

CSR: Business Opportunity?

CSR Reporting: The Ultimate Reward

Bagels With the Tall Guy: In Conversation with Green Mountain Energy

Merging Two Cultures & Winning Over the Skeptics

Sustainability Performance

Transparency in Action: “Bagels with the Tall Guy”

Public Policy & Sustainability

Defining “Shared Value”

Coding the Impact of Bottled Water

Is Nestlé Waters North America’s Business Model Sustainable?

Environmental Villain or a Case of Facts vs. Emotions?

The Challenges of Sustainability

Consumer vs. Producer Responsibility

Share this:

Share this:

From Desire to Habit: Unilever’s Five Levers for Change

Making Sustainability Personal…

… and a Business Driver

Subtle Messaging & Cause Marketing

Work Culture: Participating in Change

Share this:

Ambition: Sustainability in Perspective

The Unilever Sustainable Living Plan: Highlights

A Twist on Purposeful Cause Marketing?

Scaling Behavior: Easier Ideated than Done

Consumer Behavior: The Toughest Challenge Yet?

Share this:

Sufficiently Ambitious or Room for Improvement?

New Blueprint Needed?

Internal Certification Process, Not a Sustainability Strategy

Share this:

Earthwards & GAIA: The Need For Tools

Getting a Lift From Earthwards

GAIA: Hidden Opportunity?

Creating Change

Share this:

Diving In: The Challenges of Meeting Sustainability Goals

Diving Deeper: How High Should We Set the Bar?

Complexities Arise: Is Zero the Right Sustainability Target?

A Front Row Seat

Share this:

Human Rights & Supply Chain

Challenges of Setting CSR Goals…

…And Implementing CSR Programs

Disclosure: Led by Demand for Transparency

CSR: Business Opportunity?

CSR Reporting: The Ultimate Reward

Share this:

Merging Two Cultures & Winning Over the Skeptics

Sustainability Performance

Transparency in Action: “Bagels with the Tall Guy”

Public Policy & Sustainability

Share this:

The report is titled Connecting for a Better World. AB InBev makes beer. What’s the connection?

There’s a quote in the report from Carlos Brito saying “We’re not aliens.” Can you offer some context?

What is the ROI in producing a comprehensive CSR report such as this one? Media mentions? Retention? Rankings?

Alex Prud’homme author of The Ripple Effect recently said that “Water is the headlining story of our century.” Are you focusing on sustaining your business by reducing water use, R&D on water replenishment or identifying alternative products altogether?

[Anheuser-Busch InBev’s 2011 Global Citizenship Report]

It can be argued that 8.2% reduction in water usage since 2010 is not a lot. Primary challenges in reaching double-digit reduction?

Your report mentions the billions paid in wages and income taxes. Not a lot of reports make these metrics a part of their community development results. Why the emphasis on wages?

Can you talk to the “ownership culture” of the company?

[Sustainable Beer: Anheuser-Busch InBev’s 2012 Environmental Goals]

Share this: